This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug tree-optimization/78024] [7 regression] test cases gfortran.dg/goacc/routine-4.f90 and also routine-5.f90 fail starting with r241296


https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78024

--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78024
> 
> Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
> 
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>            Keywords|                            |patch
> 
> --- Comment #5 from Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to myself from comment #3)
> > I'll have a look later today, but if someone is able to do so now, please
> > verify whether <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg01478.html>
> > does fix this issue?
> 
> It does.  Asking once again: OK to commit?
> 
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> > Well, must be another missing BB_VISITED clearing then.
> 
> I wonder why you didn't see that regression in your testing?

I did but didn't thought it was my patch (oacc should be unrelated).
I also assumed the posted patch was already committed (as I approved it)

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]